Postmillennialism and the Imminent Return of Christ Rev. Travis Fentiman 2018 Brought to you by Reformed Books Online ReformedBooksOnline.com The Best, Free, Reformed Books and Articles Online We hope this book helps you to enjoy and glorify God This work is licensed under the very sharing-friendly: Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License 2018 Please share this work in any godly way, shape, or form desired Introduction1 Perhaps what appears to be the strongest objection put forward against postmillennialism,2 the doctrine that Christ will come back after a golden age period of Christianity on earth (Ps. 22:26-31; 67; 72:8-11; Isa. 2:2-5; 11:9; 19:18-25; 65:17-25; Zech. 14:16-21; Rom. 11:12-26; 1 Cor. 15:24-25; Rev. 11:15; etc.), is that it denies the imminent return of Christ. Richard Gaffin writes that “postmillennialism deprives the church of the imminent expectation of Christ’s return and so undermines the quality of watchfulness that is incumbent on the church.”3 If a person knows that certain prerequisites to Christ’s second coming have not been fulfilled, and probably will not be fulfilled in one’s lifetime, then one is dissuaded from watchfulness and careful, righteous living in the light of the any-moment return of Christ. This objection that Christ could come back at any moment, and its ethical corollaries, will be met head on and the Biblical data will be shown to be fully consistent with a robust postmillennialism. According to Richard Gaffin, a reformed amillennialist,4 “Christ could have returned at virtually any time since the ministry of the apostles.”5 It should be noted that this is not a historically reformed position, but has been popularized recently in reformed circles from the prevalent influence of dispensationalism.6 1 Travis Fentiman is currently a probationer in the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) and earned an MDiv from Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. He resides in Vermont, USA. This article was originally a seminary paper from roughly 2006-2008 which has been lightly updated. 2 Postmillennialism means that Christ will come back after the millennium found in Rev. 20:4. This is distinguished from Amillennialism (‘no-millennium’) and Premillennialism (Christ comes before the millennium occurs). Premillennialism, as it necessarily involves multiple Resurrections and Judgments and is hence contrary to the Westminster Standards (i.e. W.C.F. chs. 32-33), will not be interacted with here. 3 Richard B. Gaffin “Theonomy and Eschatology: Reflections on Postmillennialism,” in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, ed. William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990), 218. 4 There is quite a wide range of sub-views within this broad term ranging from amillennialists who have a ‘pessimistic’ or ‘optimistic’ outlook for the progress of the Gospel throughout the world in Church history, that the millennium (Rev. 20:4) speaks of saints ruling in heaven, that the promises describing the millennial period are (only) spiritual, etc. 5 Gaffin, “Theonomy and Eschatology,” 219. 6 Dispensationalism was popularized in the late-1800’s (but especially in the early-1900’s), is 1 O.T. Allis, as late as 1947, describes this ‘any moment’ doctrine as one of “the great fundamentals of dispensationalism.”7 Classical dispensationalism teaches that the Church Age is a parentheses in God’s time-plan and purposes; hence no Scriptural prophecies spoke of it. If this is the case, then there are no prophecies that must be fulfilled during the Church Age before Christ comes again in a secret rapture; Christ can come at any time. Loraine Boettner in 1957 critiqued the any-moment return position not under his section on amillennialism, but under dispensationalism.8 The amillennialism that came out of the reformation largely interpreted the book of Revelation in a historicist9 fashion, understanding that there are numerous prophecies that need to be fulfilled in history before Christ can come again. John Murray, indicative of typical reformed thought on this subject up into the first half of the 20th century, rightly said, “the insistence that the advent is imminent is... without warrant, and its falsity should have been demonstrated by events.”10 This objection then, that “that no predicted events remain to be fulfilled, and that there are therefore no signs to herald the Coming,”11 is of recent origin, and reflects outside influences more than it does historic reformed thought. One way to harmonize an any-moment return of Christ for the present era always Premillennial and makes strong divisions between God’s various dispensations of his dealings with his people throughout the Bible, especially between God’s plan for physical Israel in the Old Testament and his plan for the Church in the New Testament. As this is not a historic or creedal view in Christianity and is contrary to the Westminster Standards, it will not be interacted with in this article. 7 Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 1999) 204. 8 Loraine Boettner, The Millennium (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 1957) 248 ff. 9 Historicism refers to understanding the book of Revelation as largely prophesying of historical events through Church history, from Christ’s first coming to his second coming (this being consistent with the book also using spiritually symbolic language and ideals edifying to the Church). This was the dominant view of the Reformation and puritan eras. It is also the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) in that ch. 25.6 says that the Pope of Rome is, in the present tense, in the 1600’s, ‘that antichrist’. This was also the teaching of numerous other confessions in Reformed theology’s classical era. Most postmillennialists in the contemporary era are either historicists or partial-preterists, though it is possible to hold to postmillennialism and to futurism (that Revelation speaks mainly of future events) or idealism (that Revelation speaks of spiritual, edifying ideals, not necessarily historical events). 10 Mathison, Postmillennialism, 204. 11 Boettner, Millennium, 248. 2 while retaining the substance of a historically reformed eschatology is to define the nature of the millennium in such a way that it coheres with the status quo of things as they exist in our present world. Thus, all the millennial blessings in Scripture (Ps. 22:26-31; 67; 72:8-11; Isa. 2:2-5; 11:9; 19:18-25; 65:17-25; Zech. 14:16-21; Rom. 11:12-26; 1 Cor. 15:24-25; Rev. 11:15; etc.) speak no better or farther than the (lamentable) state of affairs which currently characterizes our world. As there are no further prophecies that must take place, Christ may come at any moment. Besides that this world’s current state does not do justice to these Scriptural prophecies, this view12 seeks to hold together two contrary principles. An any-moment return of Christ is held at the expense of the Scripturally promised blessings of the millennium. This is one way to handle the objection of an any-moment return of Christ; however it does not deal with the heart of the issue: Does the Bible teach an any-moment return of Christ? Greg Bahnsen, a postmillennialist, answers this question clearly: “the fact is that postmillennialism never claimed to salvage the doctrine of the any-moment return of Christ; indeed, distinctive to it is the denial of the imminent physical return.” 13 Keith Mathison, a postmillennialist writing in reference to passages about the return of Christ, says that “nothing is said of the nearness of the second coming.”14 Loraine Boettner writes that “it is true that Postmillennialists normally do not expect the Second Coming during their lifetime.”15 To answer the charge that this view produces moral laxity and careless living, Donald McLeod replies that “to expect the Lord in our life-time is not a pre-requisite for true piety - this would be to base the Christian life, in most generations, upon a falsehood.”16 12 This view often falls under the term ‘optimistic’ amillennialism, though strangely enough it fits ‘pessimistic’ amillennialism as well. Some supporters of it label themselves as postmillennialists. 13 Greg L. Bahnsen “The Prima Facie Acceptability of Postmillennialism,” in Victory in Jesus: The Bright Hope of Postmillennialism (Texarkana, AR: Covenant Media Press, 1999), 65. 14 Mathison, Postmillennialism, 205. 15 Boettner, Millennium, 249. 16 Donald McLeod, “The Second Coming of Christ,” Banner of Truth, Nos. 82-83 (July/Aug. 1970) 20, as quoted in Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), 436. 3 Two Issues Two issues are clear in entering into this subject. (1) On any view, pre-, a-, or postmillennialism, the language in the New Testament which speaks of the Lord being at hand and near in reference to His second coming cannot be taken in a temporal/linear sense. If it is, then the Bible is mistaken as 2000 years have passed without His coming; the liberals win. Temporal language, which every view has to explain, is not the issue. The real question is, are there events that must occur before Christ’s second coming, and are any of these events future to us? (2) Almost every view posits some thing or things that must occur before the second coming. Hence, not just postmillennialists, but nearly every view has to reconcile imminent language in the New Testament as a motive to godly living, with the reality that prophecies that have not come to pass must happen first. Dispensationalists who cry the loudest proclaiming the any-moment coming of Christ in the rapture, are the first to analyze, speculate and quote Scriptures regarding the signs that will precede this sign-less coming.